Buscar preguntas

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds a non-obvious behavioral fact: results contain the stem and options only, never the answer or explanation. That shapes how the agent uses the output. It says nothing about pagination behavior (cursor/limite), which is the main remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the capability plus the key output constraint are front-loaded. The alternative-tool pointer is placed last where it belongs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, and the description still adds the crucial constraint that answers/explanations are withheld. For a read-only, filterless-optional search tool that is largely sufficient. Only pagination expectations are left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 78%, so the schema carries nearly all parameter meaning. The description only gestures at 'texto y filtros' and adds no syntax, defaults, or filter semantics beyond what properties already say. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('busca preguntas del banco') and immediately narrows scope ('por texto y filtros'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling meant for graded practice, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Para practicar con corrección usa generar_simulacro.' That is a concrete alternative with a selecting condition. It doesn't cover other plausible siblings (explicar_pregunta, estadisticas_banco), so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.